State of New Hampshire v. Victor Woodin

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0708, State of New Hampshire v. Victor
Woodin, the court on October 12, 2023, issued the following
order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The defendant, Victor Woodin, appeals his conviction,
following a bench trial in the Circuit Court (Zaino, J.), on a charge of driving
under the influence, first offense. See RSA 265-A:2 (2014). We construe the
defendant’s brief to be challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the conviction, and to be arguing that the trial court erred by not allowing
certain testimony at trial. We affirm.

It is the burden of the appealing party, in this case the defendant, to
present a record that is sufficient to address the issues raised on appeal, and
to demonstrate that the appealing party raised those issues in the trial court.
Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). Absent a transcript,
we assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the result reached by
the trial court, and we review its decision for errors of law only. See id.;
Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396-97 (1997).

In this case, the defendant has not provided a trial transcript.
Accordingly, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial
court’s findings, and discerning no error of law on the face of the trial court’s
orders, we uphold the defendant’s conviction. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250;
Atwood, 142 N.H. at 396-97. Any remaining arguments raised by the
defendant are not sufficiently developed. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47,
49 (2003).

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk